Court Strikes Out Six Motions by Abuja Lawyer Victor Giwa in Alleged Forgery, Impersonation Trial

Summary: The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Apo has dismissed six motions filed by Victor Giwa, an Abuja-based lawyer, citing repeated failures to prosecute the applications and attempts to stall proceedings through petitions to judicial bodies.

Introduction

The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), sitting in Apo, has taken decisive action in the ongoing criminal trial involving Abuja lawyer Victor Giwa. Presiding Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie struck out six separate motions filed by the defense, ruling that the primary defendant’s refusal to move the applications constituted a deliberate attempt to frustrate the judicial process.

The case, which centers on allegations of forgery and impersonation, has been marked by procedural complexities and defense strategies aimed at halting the trial. This article provides a detailed analysis of the court’s ruling, the legal arguments presented, and the implications for criminal litigation in Nigeria under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).

Key Points

Background

The legal troubles for Victor Giwa began in earnest when he was arraigned alongside a co-defendant, Bukola, on charges of alleged forgery of legal documents and impersonation. The prosecution alleges that the defendants impersonated a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Awa Kalu, to deceive the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF).

The alleged objective of this impersonation was to manipulate the AGF into withdrawing an earlier criminal charge against Giwa that was pending at the FCT High Court in Maitama. This adds a layer of complexity to the case, involving fraud upon a federal legal officer and the manipulation of the justice system.

At the resumed hearing, the legal landscape was uneven. While T. Y. Silas appeared for the Inspector-General of Police and Ogbu Aboje represented the second defendant, Giwa’s counsel, Ibrahim Idris, SAN, was notably absent. Consequently, Giwa was forced to conduct his defense personally, a situation that influenced the procedural arguments that followed.

Analysis

The court’s decision to strike out the six motions offers a significant case study on the limits of procedural maneuvers in Nigerian criminal law. The analysis can be broken down into three primary legal themes: the validity of petitions as a stay of proceedings, the duty to prosecute motions, and the constitutional right to a fair trial.

Petitions to the NJC and Judicial Officers

Victor Giwa’s primary argument for an adjournment rested on his petitions to the Chief Judge of the FCT, the CJN, and the NJC. He contended that these petitions created a conflict of interest that required resolution before the trial could continue.

However, the prosecution countered this by referencing established legal principles. Justice Onwuegbuzie upheld the view that writing a petition to judicial bodies does not, in itself, operate as an automatic stay of proceedings. If the contrary were true, criminal trials could be easily stalled by the mere act of filing complaints against judges, rendering the ACJA ineffective.

Procedural Compliance and the ACJA

Under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), there are specific provisions regarding the conduct of trials. The prosecution cited Section 98(2) and Section 306(c) of the ACJA, 2015. These sections clarify that the pendency of a petition or an appeal does not automatically suspend criminal proceedings unless a specific order is granted.

Furthermore, the court highlighted the defendant’s “consistent effort to frustrate and prolong the trial.” By filing six motions and then refusing to move them—thereby causing repeated adjournments—the defense was seen as engaging in “forum shopping” and delaying tactics. The court ruled that such conduct amounts to disobedience to court orders and undermines the administration of justice.

The Recusal Motion

One of the struck-out motions specifically sought the recusal of Justice Onwuegbuzie. While the right to a fair trial includes the right to an impartial tribunal, the mechanism for seeking recusal must be procedural. By failing to move the motion for recusal when the matter was called, the defendant effectively waived the opportunity to have the issue adjudicated at that time. The court’s decision to strike out the motion underscores the principle that justice must not only be done but seen to be done, and it cannot be held hostage by indefinite delays.

Practical Advice

For legal practitioners and defendants navigating the Nigerian criminal justice system, the outcome of this hearing offers several practical lessons.

1. Prosecution of Applications

Simply filing a motion is insufficient; legal counsel must be prepared to move the application when the matter comes up in court. Failure to do so, especially after multiple adjournments, can lead to the dismissal of the motion. This is particularly critical in criminal trials where the ACJA emphasizes speedy justice.

2. Managing Petitions and Pending Trials

While litigants have the right to report judicial misconduct, they must understand that such reports do not automatically pause active litigation. Defendants should not rely on the pendency of a petition to the NJC as a shield against trial continuation. Legal strategy should account for the fact that the trial court will likely proceed with the substantive case unless a superior court issues a specific order of stay.

3. Representation and Absence

The absence of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Ibrahim Idris at this critical hearing placed the defendant, Victor Giwa, in a difficult position. While defendants have the right to counsel, the court’s docket moves forward. Ensuring consistent representation is vital to presenting arguments effectively and avoiding default judgments or procedural strikes.

4. Constitutional Interpretation

Defense arguments relying on Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (Right to fair hearing) must be substantiated with evidence of actual bias, not merely speculative allegations. The court rejected Giwa’s claim of bias because the prosecution had already opened its case, and the judge was merely managing the docket.

FAQ

Conclusion

The ruling by Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie to strike out six motions filed by Victor Giwa marks a pivotal moment in the alleged forgery and impersonation trial. By rejecting the defense’s attempt to halt proceedings via petitions to the NJC and the Chief Judge, the court has reaffirmed the statutory mandate for speedy trials under the ACJA.

The case highlights the tension between a defendant’s right to exhaust all legal remedies and the state’s interest in timely justice. As the trial adjourns to January 26, 2026, the focus will shift back to the substantive evidence regarding the alleged forgery and impersonation of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Awa Kalu. For legal observers, this case serves as a precedent on the limits of procedural delays in Nigerian criminal courts.

Sources

• Daily Post Nigeria: “Court moves out six motions by way of Abuja legal professional in alleged forgery, impersonation trial” (Published: 2026-01-22).
• Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015 (Specifically Sections 98 and 306).
• 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As amended).
• Legal precedent: Okeke v. State and Tiput v. Dawamkat (cited regarding stay of proceedings).